Quite right, excellent post and thread idea.
In a similar manner to the laughably overwrought reaction of some to the Phoenix Coyotes relaxing their stodgy dress code rules, there is a certain cohort of regressive hockey "fans" who want to vainly cling to an atavistic interpretation of what is important in the sport. I put fans in quotes because it frequently seems they care less about the actual playing of the sport itself rather than sideshow aspects - fighting, "class" (wearing suits, short hair, and other 1950s nonsense), buffoonish commentators like Don Cherry and Mike Milbury - which tend to have little or no bearing on the fundamentals: who scores the most goals, who wins the games. It's viewing hockey primarily through a lens in which it's a vehicle to promote a very niche cultural packaging, specifically some sort of blue-collar/farmboy romanticism that has no bearing on how elite athletes are developed and trained in modern society.
The obsession with fighting and its (complete lack of) causual impact on the game is one of the most obvious expressions of this. Which is why the verbiage that surrounds it is so obviously puerile: it's all about proving who's "manly" and "hard" and separating them from who's "soft" and "girly". For the crowd that peaked in high school - which, I suspect, has a lot of overlap with the crowd that prioritizes fights over the actual game play - this is perhaps expected. But as professional sports continue to embrace a more intellectual and modern approach to the game play itself through optimization of strategies, through training and nutrition that aims to produce the best athletes, and through cultivating a wealthier, more educated, more sophisticated fanbase, these sorts of attitudes will be increasingly seen as fringe, long out-of-date, and regressive in terms of the direction in which they would take the sport. Thankfully, the dinosaurs are dying off.